September 11th (1901)?

STL%20World's%20Fair.jpg


OK not technically Sept 11th, but on Sept 6th 1901, recently relected President MicKinnely was minding his own business while visiting the Temple of Music at the Buffalo World Fair when an anarchist ran up and shot him. A few days later he died and Teddy was president. The world's fair carried on.

But..

What if the anarchist attack was much much bigger and deadlier?

Say, in addition to a single assassin's bullet, dynamite or explosives were used on attractions like the Electric Tower, New York State Building etc., basically resulting in the same loss of life (or greater) then the more recent Sept 11th tragedy. (3000+)

How would this effect turn of the century America?

Would there be a "War on Anarchism"? with a coalition of the willing?
 
They could do that sure but it's not going to kill as many people or have as great of a effect as 9/11 did.

Why not?

Some keys amounts of dynamite placed around the weight bearing points of the electric tower could surely bring that hastely constructed building down.
And at peak viewing time?

Sure maybe not 3000 folks, but at least 500 to 1000 could perish.

And then, what's curious is what could happen next, especially for the young Teddy's presidency.

I think you might see cross Atlantic cooperation against anarchism as a political movement which could have some interesting butterflies.
 

Lateknight

Banned
Why not?

Some keys amounts of dynamite placed around the weight bearing points of the electric tower could surely bring that hastely constructed building down.
And at peak viewing time?

Sure maybe not 3000 folks, but at least 500 to 1000 could perish.

And then, what's curious is what could happen next, especially for the young Teddy's presidency.

I think you might see cross Atlantic cooperation against anarchism as a political movement which could have some interesting butterflies.

What anarchist there's just enough of them for this be a islamic terror analog.
 
Organized enough to assassinate a president.

Surely they could piece together some dynamite, a timer and some twine

They did so in Europe didn't they?

It's a lot easier to shoot a single man, especially the rather clever way McKinley's assassin did him in. He didn't run; he wrapped the gun in a bandaged cast, calmly walked up to McKinley in a meet and greet line, and shot him. Far easier than to engineer a massive bomb killing hundreds or thousands of people.

Besides, why bother shooting him if you're going to blow up the Fair?
 
It's a lot easier to shoot a single man, especially the rather clever way McKinley's assassin did him in. He didn't run; he wrapped the gun in a bandaged cast, calmly walked up to McKinley in a meet and greet line, and shot him. Far easier than to engineer a massive bomb killing hundreds or thousands of people.

Besides, why bother shooting him if you're going to blow up the Fair?

Because damage and mass shock is the goal of terrorism.

I mean in European anarchists, but organized and lone wolves blew crap up?

If you had a change assassinate the POTUS and kill a lot of people, that's a terrorist's wet dream. It's not strange to consider this as a what if scenario for an anarchist.

It seem most of the plausibility nitpicks are lobbied at me postulating whether or not an anarchist will blow something up prove a point. Go Figure :confused:
 
If an anarchist did something like that, it would be an accident. The world of terrorism in 1901 was radically different from today. Anarchist and Communist underground fighters scrupulously strove to avoid collateral damage, to the point of calling off organised assassination attempts for fear of harming the intended victim's family. Blowing up a bunch of bystanders just doesn't match their MO.

Of course they could get an attempt to blow the president and his entourage to kingdom come spectacularly wrong - that might do it.
 
If an anarchist did something like that, it would be an accident. The world of terrorism in 1901 was radically different from today. Anarchist and Communist underground fighters scrupulously strove to avoid collateral damage, to the point of calling off organised assassination attempts for fear of harming the intended victim's family. Blowing up a bunch of bystanders just doesn't match their MO.

Of course they could get an attempt to blow the president and his entourage to kingdom come spectacularly wrong - that might do it.

OK, so instead of a bullet, McKinnely's assassin opted to blow the Temple of Music up, killing hundreds by "accident"
 
This would mean a total alteration of the attack, because in reality while an anarchist by conviction the assassin was essentially a mentally ill man who most anarchists he ever associated with thought was a police spy due to his lack of understanding of anarchist thought. So the attack itself needs to actual be the product of a group with a plan rather than a lone nut.
 
Organized Anarchists? Isn't that oxymoronic?

Not exactly ridiculous given how just four years later the IWW was established, which while a very heterodox group was in essence a highly organized anarchist group. Really this wouldn't even be an organization. It'd at best be a conspiracy. Maybe thered be a wider anarchist terrorist grouping in the vein of the Russian Populists.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
It's certainly not as though there weren't anarchist bombers and bombing conspiracies, albeit that's fifteen years later, and resulted in relatively fewer deaths than you're hoping for.

Still, the responses are informative of what happened: the Anarchist Exclusion Act, the Palmer Raids, et cetera. While those happened in the context of both (a) the Red Scare and (b) an ongoing campaign by various anarchist groups, there's little reason not to believe that a similar response wouldn't be seen eighteen years earlier.
 
Top